[T2TRG] draft-irtf-t2trg-iot-seccons ready to publish

Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> Sun, 20 May 2018 01:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@augustcellars.com>
X-Original-To: t2trg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: t2trg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD2A4120713; Sat, 19 May 2018 18:17:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tNJUc_b_YP53; Sat, 19 May 2018 18:17:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C43F312025C; Sat, 19 May 2018 18:17:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Jude (73.180.8.170) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1347.2; Sat, 19 May 2018 18:14:45 -0700
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: irtf-chair@irtf.org
CC: irsg@irtf.org, t2trg@irtf.org
Date: Sat, 19 May 2018 18:17:23 -0700
Message-ID: <00ed01d3efd8$50af5a80$f20e0f80$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: AdPvv0QF/4Mi6xBsQKW4l8n9LeCKPA==
X-Originating-IP: [73.180.8.170]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/t2trg/Kt21weQP32EgU2b2_0ao1RkLrK8>
Subject: [T2TRG] draft-irtf-t2trg-iot-seccons ready to publish
X-BeenThere: t2trg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Thing-to-Thing Research Group <t2trg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/t2trg>, <mailto:t2trg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/t2trg/>
List-Post: <mailto:t2trg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:t2trg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/t2trg>, <mailto:t2trg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 May 2018 01:17:35 -0000

This draft has completed the IRSG poll with a final result of 2 'Ready to
publish' (in addition to the implicit RG chairs positions) and one 'No
Objection'.  The positions have been recorded in the data tracker.

 A new version of the document has been published to deal with the last of
the IRSG Poll comments.

I have sent the message to IANA for review and have received a response
(IANA ticket # 1109425) from Amanda which says that no IANA actions are
present.

Stephen Farrell did a review of the document back in February.  He made many
suggestions to the document which were mainly adopted, but still expressed
some skepticism about the final worth of the document.   What I read as his
major reservations were 1) A worry that this document was expressed as a
sales pitch and as such might have some limited long term applicability,  2)
A worry that some of the references to current work (SUIT and OSCORE being
two) in a long term document may not be useful, and 3) Some of the document
might be better if it were re-organized.

Vincent Roca did a review and requested that issues around privacy were
highlighted to a greater degree.  He recognized that this might need a new
document to be fully addressed, but felt that it needed to be stressed more.
In addition to this he provided a solid review that lead to some significant
fixes to the document.  Vincent expressed that his comments were adequately
addressed before responding to the poll.

Arbnor Zeqiri volunteered to review the draft, but not follow through as
near as I can tell.

Finally, Spencer Dawkins provided a review of the document that mostly
focused on nits with some small questions that have been addressed in this
last update.  I have gone through his review and the edits and believe that
they have been adequately addressed.  (Most of his comments can with some
suggested text.)

If you have any questions please let me know.

Jim